Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Hi guys, Dr Greyson has confirmed your suspicions as correct. To paraphrase, he explained that in order for the subject to get more attention and warrant further study, they speculated 'plausible' mechanisms. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten published. However, as we've said, TL may not be as strong evidence as NDEs, ADCs, reincarnation research etc due to this lack of further study, but it is potentially evidence against materialism, we just can't say for certain.

To paraphrase his opinion: no, he hasn't changed his mind on TL, or NDEs.

This is kind of spinning out of a skeptical point, based on a comment I made on the Simulation Theory thread. Regarding the work of Jim Tucker, I've heard it said that he has hundreds, if not thousands, of verified cases of past lives, which seems very convincing to me and difficult to apply so many pseudo-skeptical explanations for, such as embellishment, fraud and memory faults, which cannot surely be applied to every single case that has been verified. Hell, I've even heard pseudo-skeptical statements that come across as possibly racist stereotypes/generalisations of past life claimants. 

This is the second time now I've seen some skeptic try to cast doubt on Dr Tucker because of the James Leiniger case, which he supported and investigated personally. I understand that the case hasn't been definitely debunked, but it isn't as strong as other cases apparently since some of the information didn't completely match up, and it is possible that it could have been accessible to the parents of James. I'm referring to the accusations made in a skeptical blog post, in which a third of it is dedicated to seemingly discrediting the case and Dr Tucker, by 'skeptic' Jason Colavito, who was mentioned in another thread on the Simulation Theory. 

I know I mentioned in another comment I made that this guy is also probably not as good a researcher as he thinks he is (he once mentioned the Pam Reynolds NDE in passing but didn't mention the veridical perception components, and once claimed that ORCH-OR lacks any evidence, which apparently is no longer the case), but at this point I'm confused as to what to believe about that case. This doesn't really threaten Tucker's credibility given the sheer volume of cases he has studied, but could he have been mistaken in this instance? He is only human, and I can't imagine investigating the validity of these cases and how accessible details are to the public is easy.

If you're asking, is it possible for any human being to have ever made a mistake, then the answer needn't even be stated.

But when it comes to psi phenomena, it is always the most prominent cases - the ones which make headlines - which come under both proper scrutiny as well as belief-based attack.  It can be hard to distinguish legitimate examination and questioning from the 'attack at all costs' type of approach which is designed not to arrive at the truth but to drown it in a sea of loud voices.

It's worth bearing in mind that even in the case of ordinary mundane events, eye-witness accounts can differ substantially. Where there are differences over some detail of say the colour of the clothing a person was wearing or the exact words they spoke, these discrepancies do not mean that the event did not take place.

We have to keep these things in mind when examining evidence, it is unreasonable to expect every detail to match up neatly when in more mundane circumstances we expect and accept discrepancies. Keep a calm and level head too.

The Case of James Leininger

Here's Tucker's report, he seems to be quite careful about looking at other possibilities:

James's parents said he gave other details as well, but no documentation of them exists that was made before Huston was identified. James's mother said she made notes of his statements but that she either lost them or threw them away after she and her husband wrote their book. James's parents reported that he gave details about his family life that they confirmed with Huston's sister in a phone conversation. I attempted to verify this with the sister. She was 91 years old at the time I contacted her, and she was unable to recall the details of the conversation from some five years before, other than that James's mother asked whether her father was an alcoholic at one time, which he was.

Fraud must always be considered and often cannot be ruled out definitively. In this case, motivation for a hoax appears unlikely. Though James's parents did eventually write a book about their experiences that was published when James was 11years old, it seems unlikely that this led to a wholesale fraud from the beginning. The uncertain payoff of a book at some point in the future would hardly seem worth a multi-year fraud. A fraud had no other potential benefit and carried a substantial risk of inducing derision from friends and family and even strangers.Beyond that, if James's parents were perpetuating a fraud,they passed up a golden opportunity to present their story to the world during their interview for the ABC News Strange Mysteries program. Instead of telling how their son was remembering the life of the pilot James Huston, they only said that he appeared to be recalling the life of a World War II pilot who had not been identified. A subsequent interview with ABC identifying Huston did not come until nearly two years later, and James's parents had no way of knowing that another such opportunity would occur. A number of people other than James's parents had heard him talk about his World War II life by then, including his aunt whom I interviewed and the first ABC News crew, so either they or little James would have had to be party to the hoax. Given these factors, and my impression of James and his parent safter spending several hours talking to them, I view fraud asan implausible explanation for this case.

It's pretty clear this isn't the strongest of cases, and I think Tucker notes how it all hinges on self-reporting by the parents of what had happened.

As for making tons of money from a book, I doubt they made all that much in America or elsewhere. Better to have said he met Jesus or somesuch. Hardly seems worth the effort. [I know it was a NYT bestseller, but my understanding is you don't necessarily need to sell that many copies to achieve this.]

As to whether it's a case of accidental absorption, or the details could be known ahead of time and accidentally absorbed, that's always possible. I don't think it's fair to say the story was retroactively changed from Jack Larsen to James Huston, rather it seems this was always open to debate.

With cases such as these you have to ask how much you trust Tucker's ability to detect fraud on the part of the family, and whether he too wants to believe so much he didn't double check every possibility for acquiring information by normal means.

But you also have to ask whether the will to disbelieve means the seeming similarities between Larsen's recorded interview and James' statements is that significant. After all Tucker knew James Larsen was alive as well.

As to whether it's a case of accidental absorption, or the details could be known ahead of time and accidentally absorbed, that's always possible. I don't think it's fair to say the story was retroactively changed from Jack Larsen to James Huston, rather it seems this was always open to debate.

Actually here's the part about Larsen:

James's parents asked him a number of times for the nameof the little man in his dreams. He always responded with only“me”or“James.”A few weeks after James gave the word Natoma, his parents asked him if he could remember anyone else who was with the little man. James responded with the name Jack Larsen.

So it isn't clear to me where the shift from Jack Larsen to James Huston occurs?

Where exactly does James' dad claim the past life of his own son James' was Larsen, or at least thought it was Larsen?

I've actually read this case through more than once and there aren't any holes in it. Leslie Kean investigated it thoroughly. I don't know who this blogger is but it's just the usual nit picking, could have been this, might have been that and therefore it's nothing, move along folks. I've had a belly full of sceptics, they're ass-holes in my opinion (if Enrique can use that term so can I) 

Although that (barking) brown dog that lurks around Skeptiko thinks I'm a credulous fool, I can assure you that I'm ultra cautious before accepting anything and that includes NDE's, believe it or not. The case of the little boy James is either what it appears to be or the parents have contrived the whole thing. If you get Kean's book and read it for yourselves, you'll see how absurd a proposition that is. So my opinion is that the case is sound.

I've actually read this case through more than once and there aren't any holes in it. Leslie Kean investigated it thoroughly. I don't know who this blogger is but it's just the usual nit picking, could have been this, might have been that and therefore it's nothing, move along folks. I've had a belly full of sceptics

Yeah the claim that the case was originally identifying Larsen as the past life, then changed to Huston, seems like an outright lie given Tucker specifically notes the parents asked the boy about comrades in his previous life and only then were given the name of Larsen.

And as Tucker notes the parents only got a tiny bit of fame because of the second ABC network interview, which they didn't know was going to happen. The book maybe gave them a bit of cash but given by then James didn't recall much if anything there wasn't much to build on in terms of acquiring wealth.

OTOH you have a self-described "professional" skeptic who wants to get consulting fees and sell numerous books insinuating something that can easily be seen to contradict the report Tucker wrote.

Anyway Tucker has a new book coming out next year, hopefully it's brand new cases or new evidence for old cases.

Yeah the claim that the case was originally identifying Larsen as the past life, then changed to Huston, seems like an outright lie given Tucker specifically notes the parents asked the boy about comrades in his previous life and only then were given the name of Larsen.

And as Tucker notes the parents only got a tiny bit of fame because of the second ABC network interview, which they didn't know was going to happen. The book maybe gave them a bit of cash but given by then James didn't recall much if anything there wasn't much to build on in terms of acquiring wealth.

OTOH you have a self-described "professional" skeptic who wants to get consulting fees and sell numerous books insinuating something that can easily be seen to contradict the report Tucker wrote.

Anyway Tucker has a new book coming out next year, hopefully it's brand new cases or new evidence for old cases.

Thanks, Sci ! That was a very diplomatic cut off point in your quote...leaving out my bad language. I shouldn't, but it just winds me up.

Ok, so a recent post I'd seen pop up on my Instagram about DMT has got me bothered about this topic again because I'm sick of seeing it referenced on social media occasionally. It came from one of those obscure, very dodgy/suspicious 'fact' accounts you often may see that tend to post 'pop science' facts or things that are either a)half-truths or b)flat-out false. They tend to get mocked online for their abysmal research or posting false information.  

It was poorly worded but was yet another claim about there being evidence that DMT is released in the brain upon death and whatnot. I have realised that this 'theory', which started with Rick Strausmann, gained so much popularity for a while from NDE skeptics and those who've taken it because of Joe Rogan, who once made some very bold claims on his podcast that it had somehow been proven several years ago now. 

I understand that Rogan has been criticised for saying either half-truths, feeding misinformation and/or jumping to conclusions on his podcast, but I want to know whether or not there's anything definitive. 

IIRC, there is still no evidence that DMT has been found to be released by the human brain upon death, regardless of it being an inadequate explanation for NDEs. The last I recall, there was that rat study, and some have suggested that they found traces of DMT in a dead human's bloodstream(?), but I still haven't heard of confirmation on this. The last time I looked this up, I was presented immediately with articles saying that there's not enough evidence for the DMT-released-in-brain theory and it was exaggerated/blown out of proportion by Joe Rogan. I also remember a scientist (who's name escapes me ATM) who criticised the theory greatly, pointing out that the pineal gland would not be able to produce enough DMT to have any noticeable effect in the brain, and there was a Skeptiko thread that also featured a decent debunking of the theory at the time, but I don't know how well it holds up now. 

Does anyone have any factual clarification on the whole DMT-brain stuff? Is it really 'scientific' and been proven, or is it just as speculative as I suspected?

Does anyone have any factual clarification on the whole DMT-brain stuff? Is it really 'scientific' and been proven, or is it just as speculative as I suspected?

It's a red herring. As Dr Sam Parnia has pointed out, it doesn't matter what drugs are in the bloodstream or in the brain, nor would it matter whether they were naturally produced or artificially ingested. When the blood supply to the brain is cut off, the brain rapidly runs short of nutrients and of oxygen, loss of consciousness follows within a few seconds. Under those circumstances there can be no brain-based consciousness.

In addition, there is no chemical which allows for veridical observation of events beyond the reach of the normal senses. For example seeing events occurring down a corridor, or hearing conversations taking place in another room. Or reading the innermost unspoken thoughts of all the people in the room.

Still, it's an interesting topic. There's lots of reading material available, search for "spirit molecule" on the pdfdrive website.